Some more Australian numbers

Three and a half weeks later, Australia’s federal election is closer to being finished, but it’s not there yet. This week, Senate results are emerging; three states and both territories have been decided so far, with Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales (probably in that order) still to come. Tasmania elected two each Labor and Liberal, a Green and Jacqui Lambie; South Australia and Victoria both went three Labor, two Liberal and a Green, as expected.

The final seat in Western Australia is the only remaining uncertainty, being fought out between the third Labor candidate and One Nation. I haven’t analysed the figures, but among those who have there seems a consensus that Labor has its nose very slightly in front. If it stays that way, the totals in the new Senate will be Labor 30, Liberals 23, Greens eleven, Nationals four, far right three, Lambie, and four independents.

As far as the lower house is concerned, Labor got home in Calwell without much trouble in the end, leaving Bradfield as the only seat undecided. There a recount is being conducted after the Liberal led the Teal on the official distribution of preferences by just eight votes. So far the recount has shown little change, but it may extend into next week and a further legal challenge is possible.

There is also a partial recount taking place in Goldstein, the Liberals’ solitary gain (from the Teals). There the margin was a much more substantial 260 votes, but a sufficiently large number of errors had been discovered along the way that the commission (correctly, in my view) decided it was worth recounting the Liberal and Teal primaries. Nonetheless, it’s most unlikely that the result will change.

Counting it and Bradfield in the Liberal column, we have Labor 94, Liberal 29, National 15 (it remains unclear whether the latter two will resume their coalition) and crossbench 12 (one Green, one far right, two non-aligned and the rest Teals or Teal-adjacent). That’s a Labor majority of 38 against all comers (up from three at the 2022 election) and a left-right majority of maybe 56 seats, 103 to 47.

With counting mostly complete there’s a wealth of interesting information to be drawn from the electoral commission’s website. The primary vote totals, which are now effectively final, show that the major party vote has indeed dropped below the psychological two-thirds mark for the first time ever: Labor 34.6% (up 2.0%) and “Coalition” 31.8% (down 3.9%).

Of the 33.6% with third parties and independents, the Greens lead with 12.2%, unchanged from 2022. One Nation was next with 6.4% (up 1.4%), and only three other parties topped 1%: Trumpet of Patriots 1.9% (down 2.2%), Family First 1.8% and Legalise Cannabis 1.2%. The fact that the Greens and the far right won almost 24% of the vote between them yet won only a single seat each is an extraordinary indictment of our electoral system (more about this on another occasion).

When it comes to two-party-preferred vote the position is less clear, although that’s not immediately obvious. The table I linked to above also includes a figure for two-party-preferred – Labor 55.4%, a swing of 3.3% – but that’s based on fewer votes counted, 83.1% of enrolment as against 90.7%. That’s because the commission has not yet finished counting notional two-party results for the seats that didn’t finish as a Labor vs Coalition contest, known as “non-classic” seats.

Regular readers may remember this issue from last time. Once a relatively rare phenomenon, “non-classic” seats continue to multiply: the commission currently lists 35 of them (up from 27 in 2022, already a record). Five of those (Bradfield, Cowper, Goldstein, Kennedy and Newcastle) have no two-party-preferred count at all, and several of the rest are clearly incomplete. So while that 55.4% isn’t going to change much, it shouldn’t be taken as final.

That will all be material for later comment. But I’ll finish with one other table, titled “Seats decided on first preferences” – that is, seats where the winning candidate had more than half the primary vote, meaning that distribution of preferences was unnecessary (although it’s done anyway, for information purposes). William Bowe drew attention to this last week, listing eleven such seats.

The table currently lists nine, but Chifley and Fenner clearly should be on it as well. But that’s an incredibly low number for what once used to describe the large majority of seats. And of the eleven seats, eight are Labor and three National Party: there are no Liberal seats at all won without preferences. What used to be a subordinate part of the system has become almost universal.

In other words, as Ben Raue keeps pointing out, while the formal rules of our electoral system have remained the same, the way it actually operates has altered dramatically. But no-one wants to talk about whether changing voter behavior requires us to look at changing the rules.

.

UPDATE, 6.45pm: Kevin Bonham is following the Bradfield recount, and the Liberal margin is down to four votes. He comments that there’s “still scope for someone to get a meaningful break.” Or not, of course.

FURTHER UPDATE, Thursday 4.05pm: The Western Australian Senate count has been completed and One Nation beat Labor for the final vacancy – the first time it has won a Senate seat outside of Queensland (although it would have won one in 1998 in NSW if the Coalition had not preferenced against it). [See note below] That brings Labor’s Senate numbers (post-30 June) down to 29, but it makes no practical difference; it will still have a comfortable majority in conjunction with either the Greens or the Liberals.

NOTE (added 18 August): The above remark about One Nation having not previously won a seat outside of Queensland only refers to half-Senate elections; in the double dissolution of 2016 it also won seats in New South Wales and Western Australia.